Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader tips news that Mozilla has released the beta version of Firefox 8, only a few days after going live with the final version of Firefox 7. According to the announcement, the big changes this time around include the ability to use Twitter as a default search engine, more versatility in restoring tabs on startup, and improved user control over add-ons. "Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on, Firefox will disable the add-on until the user has explicitly opted in, giving users better control over their Web experience."

Are people switching TO Opera? I'm in the process of abandoning it. It used to be an amazing browser, way ahead of the curve. But all its interesting features have been copied by everybody else by now, and too many websites just don't work well in Opera.

Like which websites? I've used Opera consistently for about 7 years now. It used to not work with a few sites, but it's been a while since I've come across anything that is actually broken. And it still has a large number of uncopied features (like a mail client) which I've simply become used to having around. Ever since it added extensions, I really think there isn't a good reason to use Firefox anymore (aside maybe from an extension that hasn't been ported yet.)

Extensions. They invalidate them every major revision and they've been revising on a schedule where many of these plugins aren't keeping up. It was much better when there were point releases that didn't break the extensions, but now they're broken every 3 months and the vendors can't keep up.

Everything I used that worked in FF7 still works for me in FF8. Even one that hasn't been updated since FF6.

After installing the Add-on Compatibility Reporter, your incompatible extensions will become enabled for you to test whether they still work with the version of Firefox or Thunderbird that you're using. If you notice that one of your add-ons doesn't seem to be working the same way it did

Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).

eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Sudde

The really sad thing? The other week, the latest release of Firefox 6 decided that it wanted to intermittently crash my Nvidia drivers. Until I figured out I could fix this by disabling the hardware acceleration option (which has absolutely zero impact on performance anyway), I was coming to the conclusion that rather than Opera or Chrome, if I was going to switch, it would be to IE. Having not used it for years, I was pretty shocked at how much it had improved in the interim.

That said, I think there's some deep part of me that would just find it hard to trust IE.

But yes, Firefox has long since passed the point where a new version meant "oooh, new features" and reached the point where it means "oh god, what have they broken or ruined this time?"

An API that is accessible to userspace code and can crash the system, or otherwise significantly affect all processes running on it, is unacceptable. "Undefined behavior" that crashes the calling process only is okay. "Undefined behavior" that crashes the driver in the kernel is not.

I developed the exact same problem with my ATI drivers after updating to Calalyst 11.7. Blue Screens of Death after watching exactly 3 YouTube videos under Adobe Flash.

I disabled hardware acceleration in Flash and now the system is perfectly stable.

I'm still using Firefox 3.6.x

So, either Flash is the culprit, or there's something wrong with trying to use "hardware acceleration" (of what?) through the overlay that Firefox is using. Does Opera/Chrome/IE have similar problems? I've just accepted that Flash itself was the problem, and haven't tested any other browsers.

The BUG is between your comrades right ear and left, they are DESTROYING a once-good software because this version churning breaks plugins, breaks access to web sites, and break use with other web-fronted softwares. Your team is ignoring user needs and flying off on a ridiculous tangent that does the users no good. People are getting fed up with this crap and ditching Firefox. Your project will LOSE MONEY that it gets based on user share. Tell them to quit being ivory tower dumb-asses working in a vacuum and start taking heed of the real world of users.

I have no idea which problem you're talking about, so I don't know whether it's fixed.... I personally don't work on the guts of text layout, so you'll have to help me out here by pointing to a bug report.

You could always go back to the older browsers. You can still download Phoenix 0.5 (aka pre-firefox firefox) right here [mozilla.org], and Firefox 1.0 here [oldapps.com]. Im pretty sure you will discover that its a case of "the grass is always greener", though.

I installed Firefox 7.0 recently because I needed a SQLite manager and it's available as an add-on. But I'll stay with Chrome for the moment to browse the web, it's fast, stable and has all the features I need.

why didn't you switch when you could use ebay as search engine in firefox? or wikipedia? or amazon? or bing? or yagoo?have you noticed, default is google, and every single engine can be set as default, should you want to.

basically, you're dumb.

I don't think he's complaining about the fact that there are search engine choices, but rather that the biggest new feature in a major version update is "you can use twitter as the default search engine." I mean, seriously, this is Mozilla saying, "We broke all your

With Firefox releasing betas/alphas and new releases every few weeks, why are we covering this? Can't we just have the ever six week release story and maybe another one if they do something innovative?

Chrome is on version 15 but I don't see a story here every number change.

along those lines, why can't i right click the scroll bar and select TOP or BOTTOM like in so many other programs? This has always driven me crazy when i'm on a loooong page and want to get back to the top where the navigation crap is.

Because people still have to complain about the version number, so they up vote this stuff. It's important to them, because they want people to switch to Chrome.Oh yeah, Chrome versions are worse and its released more often, but that's beyond the point. The point is to bash, flame, troll, the competition. That's what people like.And then again, that's why this story is up voted.

Because there are young geeks out there that still care about messing with betas and don't know everything about all the topics Slashdot *has* posted in the PAST.

When I was a first year undergrad, just getting to learn Slashdot, I remember reading about the beta (maybe alpha) here. I downloaded it, installed it, and followed every single beta release after that. I installed it on other peoples' computers. There were other beta programs announced and I tried those, too. I watched the BetaNews feed in hopes o

Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on

I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?

Mozilla blog mentions that it's for addons, which are different from plugins (plugins use NPAPI - Flash, Java, Shockwave, etc. - vs XPIs). They are separately listed in the addons manager for that reason. At this point, I'd say it probably doesn't apply to plugins, but the page doesn't give enough context to determine that.

Users will receive a one-time notification to review and confirm third party add-ons they want to keep, disable or delete. When Firefox starts and finds that a third-party program has installed an add-on

I assume this include Microsoft stealth adding extensions to the browser?

Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.

The toolbars were always extensions, and removable-- unless they were installed in a system-wide fashion, in which case you need to manually remove them from the firefox program folder.

However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.).

Addons is a parent category that includes Extensions (Adblock and the rest) and Plugins (flash, etc). You can see this when you go to the firefox menu-- the "addons" entry takes you to a list of extensions and plugins. The "get addons" is referring to the fact that all extensions are, in fact, addons. Think "square is a re

If that's true, then it's as comprehensive as I'd hope. I just wonder if Firefox will whitelist certain addons at the risk of seeming to play favorites (if people don't check to enable Flash and then try to go to Youtube, it won't work).

Either that or prompt when a plugin that's present but default disabled would be used and ask if they want to enable it with a notification. Not sure of the handling code for that, but I can't imagine it being impossible.

So if my initial interpretation was correct (same as yours- this is for extensions not plugins), that won't be a problem; if his interpretation is correct (keeping in mind that he challenged mine - plugins/extensions are under the addons umbrella, both appear in the addon manager, etc.) it would be.

The addons I want to keep? Sorry, I've never had this experience. It's more like, "the addons I want to permanently disable as they won't be updated to the latest version because the creator finished his project and moved on with his life". Seriously, a browser whose entire idea is 'you can extend it' combined with constant compatibility-breaking updates?

Previously, all add-ons were marked "incompatible" by default on a major version change and authors needed to test their add-on and explicitly mark it as OK for it to work. This caused the painful loss of add-ons during major updates that you mention.

The new system scans the source code for every add-on automatically and flags as compatible all those which don't touch parts of firefox which have changed. As a result, as long as the author of th

Allright, allright, I think I just need to add my experience: that since FireFox 5, updates have never broken ANY of my plugins. The list of plugins I use is below. I don't know what plugins are affected but all this ranting on Slashdot may just be symptomatic of this being Slashdot and nerds using weird hacked together plugins that scratch a particular itch and are realistically speaking, fringe. Can you name any popular plugins that have been broken since the recent high speed updates? You know what, I'm

Then why is it that of the 8 extensions I use, I haven't had one of them break since the move from 3 to 4? You're barking out FUD that wasn't true months ago... At this point, there is no one else but yourself to blame for why you're still on 3.6.

The development cycle is better but using major numbers is stupid and has rendered it meaningless IMO. Chrome ratchets up the version number similarly, they just don't trumpet it and instead silently update (which Mozilla is deeply opposed to).

Honestly I think the default option should be default stealth update like Chrome and, during install, ask if people want continuous silent updates. Let the nerds opt out if they have concerns and let everyone who doesn't like to know about every update get it.

You know how annoying it would be to have to stop and look for your tools because someone's pet monkey would sneak away with your tools?
Well Firefox seems to have become that pet monkey. I'm deep into some project, and suddenly I get some upgrade notice and I have to review which updates are now broken? Oh then I got to find out what else is broke?
Firefox, give us a break!! Er wait don't! You've been giving us plenty of broken tools, web sites.

I think you should stop caring about version numbers. They are just numbers after all. I personally prefer having small updates on something like a weekly basis allowing yourself to slowly accept changes rather than having large releases every couple of months and have a paradigm shift shoved down your throat.

If that is what you wanted you have been able to get nighty builds for a long time, before that you could have done CVS snapshots and done your own build, (easily scripted).

Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.

As end user you could be mostly certain that whatever version you downloaded or were rol

Major releases were nice because it meant as someone publishing stuff to the web you could count on the major it of users having one of about three browsers, times one or two previous revisions of those. It made it relatively possible to test things.

As opposed to what...? Everybody having the exact same version as you since the updates became automated and invisible?

The fact that they have a dot in the middle suggests that they have some structure; that the number in front of the dot is more significant than the one after the dot. Why call it 8.0 when it's just a meaningless number? And why is mine called 7.0.1 instead of 7 or 7.1 or 8?

In fact, why not just use build numbers? Just give me Firefox 7136 and I'll admit that it's just a number with no implication of meaning or structure.

I wonder at what point the people who support this nonsense will stop trying to reverse the tide by spitting at it. People DO care about the version number, no matter if the ivory tower planners think they should or not.

Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.

I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.

8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party

It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.

If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI [secunia.com] to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.

You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I sup

Pft are you kidding? I have a bet that we'll see Firefox 15 by Halloween. At the rate we're going we might just see it. I'm kinda ticked at the stupidity of this though. I mean what's the point of actually using versions especially if you need to file bug reports if the user can't submit a bug report for the browser they're using outside of "10" or "23" or whatever else?

Bah. I'm looking at chrome as well. The only thing stopping me is the lack of something like noscript.

But Firefox 4 sucked, which is why most of us have stuck to 3.6. Perhaps by Firefox 15 it will be a suitable replacement by 3.6, particularly if they've given in and started supporting stable releases again.